EXECUTIVE OFFICER MEETING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
JOE SERNA JR. BUILDING
CALEPA HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
1001 I STREET
SIERRA HEARING ROOM
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2004
9:00 A.M.
JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
LICENSE NUMBER 10063
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
APPEARANCES
STAFF
Mr. Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer
Mr. Bob Barham, Deputy Chief, Stationary Source Division
Mr. Tom Jennings, Senior Staff Counsel
Ms. Cheri Rainforth, Industrial Section
Mr. Dean Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch
Mr. Gary Yee, Industrial Section
ALSO PRESENT
Mr. Mike Ingham, Chevron-Texaco
Mr. Tom Livingston, Bosch (via teleconference)
Mr. Gordon Schremp, California Energy Commission
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
INDEX
PAGE
Opening remarks by Deputy Executive Officer Scheible 1
Item 04-02-1 1
Deputy Executive Officer Scheible 1
Staff Presentation 1
Mike Ingham 17
Gordon Schremp 18
Tom Livingston (via teleconference) 19
Closing remarks by Deputy Executive Officer Scheible 23
Adjournment 24
Reporter's Certificate 25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Good morning,
3 and happy almost Thanksgiving. And our apologies for
4 having this hearing on the day before Thanksgiving. But
5 this is an action that we have to move quickly on, and it
6 was a good day to find an available hearing room, so we're
7 moving.
8 The November 24th, 2004, public hearing of the
9 Air Resources Board Executive Officer will come to order.
10 My name is Mike Scheible. I'm the Deputy Executive
11 Officer of the California Air Resources Board.
12 Our Executive Officer, Mrs. Catherine
13 Witherspoon, has delegated to me the authority to conduct
14 this public hearing to consider an emergency action to
15 delay the January 1st, 2005, implementation date of the
16 diesel fuel lubricity standard. The emergency action is
17 being sought to avoid potential supply disruptions of
18 California diesel fuel supply if the implementation date
19 is not extended.
20 Mr. Simeroth of the ARB staff, would you please
21 introduce this item and begin the staff's presentation.
22 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION
23 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Thank you, Mr. Scheible.
24 As you stated, the staff is requesting a 120-day
25 delay of the January 1st, 2005, implementation date of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 diesel fuel lubricity standard.
2 The specification is a new standard that would
3 likely require refiners to increase the use of lubricity
4 additives to diesel fuel. Lubricity is a measure of the
5 ability of diesel fuel to provide wear protection on
6 internal contact components in diesel engine fuel systems.
7 California diesel fuel containing lubricity
8 additives has been shipped in the common carrier pipeline
9 with little contamination effects until last month. It
10 was expected that the common carrier pipeline operator
11 serving California would allow this practice to continue
12 until the 15 parts per million sulfur standard comes into
13 effect in 2006.
14 This would allow time for additive injection
15 equipment to be installed in the fuel terminals in
16 California. However, at an American Society for Testing
17 and Materials Committee meeting late last month, industry
18 found that possible jet fuel contamination due to sharing
19 the common carrier pipeline with diesel fuel containing
20 lubricity additives has become a more significant concern
21 than previously realized.
22 Diesel fuel containing lubricity additives can
23 contaminate subsequent shipments of jet fuel to the extent
24 that the jet fuel being shipped can fail its respective
25 fuel specifications.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 With this increased level of concern in the
2 industry, the operator of the California pipeline system
3 announced on October 26 that effective immediately diesel
4 fuel containing lubricity additives could not be shipped
5 in its pipeline. Other pipeline operators in the United
6 States announced similar prohibitions.
7 However, in the last ten years, California
8 refiners have used lubricity additives in diesel fuel and
9 distributed the additized product through the common
10 carrier pipeline. During this time only two instances of
11 contamination have been reported that can be associated
12 with this practice. In these two instances, jet fuel
13 immediately followed low sulfur diesel fuel additized with
14 lubricity additives. This contamination was detected and
15 the fuel was diverted.
16 Following discussions between the common carrier
17 pipeline operator, California refiners, and state
18 regulatory agencies, on November 5th, 2004, the pipeline
19 operator notified suppliers they will allow the transport
20 of California diesel fuel treated with historical levels
21 of additives for an interim period only until fuel
22 additization blending equipment can be installed at the
23 terminals. Additionally, they will coordinate product
24 shipments to minimize the possibility of jet fuel
25 contamination.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
4
1 Because the installation of terminal additization
2 equipment cannot be done immediately, consideration of a
3 120-day delay in the January 1st, 2005, implementation
4 date of the diesel fuel lubricity standard is necessary.
5 At this time we'll call on Ms. Cherie Rainforth,
6 an Air Resources engineer of the Industrial Section, to
7 present the item.
8 Ms. Rainforth.
9 MS. RAINFORTH: Thank you, Mr. Simeroth.
10 Good morning.
11 Today I will present the staff's proposal for an
12 emergency amendment delaying the January 1st, 2005,
13 implementation date for the diesel fuel lubricity standard
14 for 120 days.
15 I will start with some background information,
16 followed by a discussion of the issues related to the need
17 for the delay. Then I will describe the staff proposal
18 and impacts.
19 Finally I will conclude with the staff
20 recommendation.
21 --o0o--
22 MS. RAINFORTH: I will begin with some background
23 information.
24 --o0o--
25 MS. RAINFORTH: Diesel fuel lubricity is a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
5
1 measure of the ability of diesel fuel to provide surface
2 contact lubrication.
3 Adequate fuel lubricity is required to protect
4 fuel pumps and injection systems, that rely on fuel as a
5 lubricant, from excessive wear.
6 Fuel lubricity is provided by trace components in
7 the fuel that are composed of surface active molecules.
8 Unfortunately, the process that reduced sulfur
9 compounds, hydrotreating, also reduces the level of these
10 trace components that provide the fuel with lubricity.
11 --o0o--
12 MS. RAINFORTH: In 2003, the Air Resources Board
13 approved a lubricity standard for California diesel fuel
14 to assure that adequate diesel fuel lubricity is provided
15 as the implementation date for the 15 ppm sulfur standard
16 approaches.
17 --o0o--
18 MS. RAINFORTH: This ARB lubricity standard uses
19 the High Frequency Reciprocating Rig, or HFRR, lubricity
20 test and specifies a maximum wear scar diameter of 520
21 microns.
22 The implementation date for this standard is
23 January 1st, 2005.
24 However, there is a provision in the regulation
25 to sunset the standard if the California Department of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
6
1 Food and Agriculture, Division of Measurement Standards,
2 or DMS, adopts and enforces a lubricity standard that is
3 at least as stringent.
4 --o0o--
5 MS. RAINFORTH: Since the approval of the ARB
6 standard, the American Society for Testing and Materials,
7 or ASTM, adopted a diesel fuel lubricity standard
8 identical to the ARB standard.
9 This ASTM standard also becomes effective on
10 January 1st, 2005.
11 By California State law, DMS is required to adopt
12 and enforce the specifications set forth by ASTM for
13 diesel fuel.
14 However, ASTM is currently voting on a ballot to
15 delay the effective date of their standard until January
16 1st, 2006.
17 --o0o--
18 MS. RAINFORTH: Diesel fuel lubricity was
19 recognized as a concern in 1988 when ARB first approved
20 the statewide sulfur and aromatic hydrocarbon standards.
21 --o0o--
22 MS. RAINFORTH: A Governor's task force was
23 formed in 1993 to study diesel fuel quality issues.
24 This task force issued a report in 1994 which
25 recommended a minimum fuel lubricity level based on the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
7
1 Scuffing Load Ball-on-Cylinder Lubricity evaluator test or
2 SL-Bocle. The recommended standard was a minimum scuffing
3 load of 3,000 grams.
4 --o0o--
5 MS. RAINFORTH: Since that time, refiners have
6 voluntarily maintained a minimum lubricity level of 3100
7 grams scuffing load based on the SL-Bocle test.
8 --o0o--
9 MS. RAINFORTH: Consequently, Lubricity additives
10 have been in use since at least 1993.
11 Currently, 11 of the 15 California refineries
12 producing CARB diesel use lubricity additives to some
13 degree.
14 Additization rates in use today typically range
15 from 30 to 200 parts per million.
16 It is expected that in order to meet the January
17 1st, 2005, lubricity standard, additization rates will
18 increase by 25 to 50 ppm.
19 --o0o--
20 MS. RAINFORTH: However, in 2006, when the 15 ppm
21 sulfur standard is implemented, it is expected that
22 additization rates will increase significantly.
23 --o0o--
24 MS. RAINFORTH: EPA diesel generally receives
25 less hydrotreating than CARB diesel. This is illustrated
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
8
1 by the fact that the average sulfur content of EPA diesel,
2 340 ppm, is significantly higher than that of CARB diesel,
3 140 ppm.
4 Additionally, EPA diesel is not required to meet
5 a maximum aromatic standard.
6 Consequently, lubricity additive use is not as
7 prevalent nationally than in California.
8 However, it has been estimated that 30 to 40
9 percent of current production may require additization in
10 order to meet the ASTM lubricity standard.
11 In 2006, with the implementation of the 15 ppm
12 sulfur standard, all fuel may require additization.
13 --o0o--
14 MS. RAINFORTH: Both Europe and Canada have
15 adopted more stringent standards than the ARB standard.
16 They require a maximum wear scar diameter of 460
17 microns based on the HFRR test.
18 This more stringent standard would generally
19 require additization for lubricity improvement.
20 For Canada, this standard is one of several in
21 its cafeteria style standard.
22 --o0o--
23 MS. RAINFORTH: I will now discuss the issues
24 considered in developing the proposal.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
9
1 MS. RAINFORTH: California diesel fuel has
2 historically been additized at the refinery and then
3 shipped through the common carrier pipeline. This does
4 introduce a risk of lubricity additive contamination of
5 the subsequent fuel shipment.
6 Lubricity additives by nature are surface active
7 compounds and can adhere to the pipeline wall. The fuel
8 shipment following the additized diesel may pick up
9 additive off of the pipeline wall. If jet fuel follows
10 the additized diesel, lubricity additive contamination may
11 cause the jet fuel to fail its fuel specifications.
12 There are two known instances of jet fuel
13 contamination in California in the last ten years. In
14 both cases, jet fuel immediately followed additized low
15 sulfur diesel and the contamination was detected and the
16 fuel diverted.
17 Due to the successful history and the minimal
18 increase in additization expected in order to meet the ARB
19 2005 lubricity standard, no change in pipeline policy was
20 expected until 2006. It was felt that the possibility of
21 jet fuel contamination was an issue that was manageable by
22 sequencing fuel shipments.
23 --o0o--
24 MS. RAINFORTH: Recently, however, the level of
25 concern regarding the possibility of jet fuel
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
10
1 contamination was raised significantly in the stakeholder
2 community, leading to a ban of lubricity additives in the
3 California common carrier pipeline.
4 The expected increase in additive use due to the
5 implementation of the ARB and ASTM lubricity standards
6 brought this issue to the forefront.
7 The ASTM joint subcommittee E and J Task Force, a
8 joint subcommittee of both diesel and aviation fuel
9 subcommittees, met on October 22nd of this year to discuss
10 this issue. At this meeting studies were presented on the
11 possible effects of lubricity additive contamination on
12 jet fuel. The studies were preliminary and details and
13 details were not available at the meeting. However, the
14 level of concern regarding the detrimental effects was
15 raised considerably on the basis of the information
16 presented.
17 --o0o--
18 MS. RAINFORTH: As a result of this meeting, on
19 October 26th the operator of California's common carrier
20 pipeline issued a notification to product shippers on its
21 pipeline that effective immediately no diesel fuel
22 containing lubricity additives would be permitted in the
23 pipeline.
24 --o0o--
25 MS. RAINFORTH: This additive ban threatened an
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
11
1 disruption of California's diesel fuel supply. California
2 refiners, the pipeline operator, and state agencies held
3 multiple teleconferences to discuss the possible impacts
4 and options for dealing with this ban.
5 It was estimated that nearly 50 percent of the
6 California diesel supplied would be impacted by this.
7 Additization at the terminal had not yet the been
8 implemented and the work around options available were not
9 feasible.
10 The large volume of diesel fuel impacted could
11 not be transported by truck due to the limited number of
12 trucks and drivers available. Additive splash blending
13 into the trucks at the terminals had too many safety
14 concerns to be allowed.
15 --o0o--
16 MS. RAINFORTH: Early in November Kinder Morgan
17 announced an interim pipeline protocol to be in effect
18 until additization at the terminals could be arranged.
19 --o0o--
20 MS. RAINFORTH: This interim pipeline protocol
21 was to allow time for terminal additization to be
22 implemented.
23 This protocol allows the shipment of diesel fuel
24 containing lubricity additives with the stipulation that
25 additization rates remain at historical levels.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
12
1 Kinder Morgan will coordinate fuel shipments to
2 assure that jet fuel will not immediately follow diesel
3 fuel containing lubricity additives.
4 --o0o--
5 MS. RAINFORTH: In order to allow time to arrange
6 additization at the terminals, Kinder Morgan has requested
7 a delay in the January 1st, 2005, lubricity standard
8 implementation date.
9 The implementation of the 520 micron maximum wear
10 scar diameter standard is expected to increase
11 additization levels. It is felt that any increase in
12 additization levels would increase the risk of downstream
13 contamination.
14 Terminal additization will not be installed and
15 operational for most terminals by the January 1st, 2005,
16 implementation date.
17 --o0o--
18 MS. RAINFORTH: As you are aware, the jet fuel
19 contamination issue is an national concern. Multiple
20 pipeline operators outside of California have instituted a
21 ban of diesel fuel containing lubricity additives. And
22 similar to the situation within California, additization
23 at the terminal is not available at the majority of
24 locations.
25 Additionally, the current inventory of injection
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
13
1 equipment is not adequate to equip all U.S. terminals by
2 the January 1st date.
3 --o0o--
4 MS. RAINFORTH: Consequently, there is a
5 possibility of delay in the effective date of the national
6 ASTM lubricity standard.
7 As of October 18th of this year, 21 states,
8 including California, have adopted the newest version of
9 the ASTM diesel fuel specification, D 975, which includes
10 the lubricity standard. However, because of the
11 possibility of jet fuel contamination, the inability to
12 additize at the terminals, and in order to assure adequate
13 supplies of diesel fuel and jet fuel, North Carolina has
14 been the first state to issue a letter suspending
15 enforcement of the standard until October 1st, 2005.
16 For similar reasons, the California Division of
17 Measurement Standards will extend enforcement discretion
18 if requested by letter of application.
19 An ASTM ballot to revise the effective date of
20 the ASTM standard to January 1st, 2006, was issued on
21 October 22nd and closed at the beginning of this week. We
22 do not yet have the results of this ballot.
23 --o0o--
24 MS. RAINFORTH: I will now begin my presentation
25 of the staff proposal.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
14
1 --o0o--
2 MS. RAINFORTH: The Air Resources Board is
3 authorized to amend a regulation on an emergency basis
4 contingent upon the finding that the amendment is
5 necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
6 health and safety or general welfare.
7 --o0o--
8 MS. RAINFORTH: However, an amendment adopted on
9 an emergency basis remains in effect no more than 120 days
10 unless the adopting agency follows up this amendment with
11 one that complies with the procedural requirements for a
12 normal amendment. Hence, the maximum delay that we can
13 propose for this emergency amendment is 120 days.
14 --o0o--
15 MS. RAINFORTH: Our proposal is to delay all of
16 the 2005 phase-in dates for the lubricity standard until
17 May 1st, 2005, the 120th day after the original
18 implementation date.
19 Kinder Morgan is projecting that they will have
20 some form of terminal additization in place, possibly tank
21 blending, by the May 1st date.
22 The delay does not apply to vehicular diesel fuel
23 represented as having sulfur content not exceeding 15
24 parts per million. Currently all 15 ppm sulfur diesel is
25 being transported by truck from the refinery terminal to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
15
1 the end user, so this fuel is not impacted by the pipeline
2 restriction regarding additization.
3 --o0o--
4 MS. RAINFORTH: This delay is necessary to avoid
5 disruption of diesel fuel supplies if refiners are unable
6 to ship fuel through the pipeline that has been adequately
7 additized to meet the new lubricity standard.
8 --o0o--
9 MS. RAINFORTH: This proposed delay will not
10 generate any adverse impacts. There should be no adverse
11 impact on diesel fuel production; nor should there be any
12 adverse environmental impact since refiners will be
13 maintaining their voluntary minimum lubricity standard.
14 Lastly, there will be no adverse economic impact
15 for either individuals or businesses.
16 --o0o--
17 MS. RAINFORTH: The staff recommends that a
18 finding of emergency be made based on the disruption of
19 diesel fuel supplies that would occur if the lubricity
20 standard is implemented prior to having the capability of
21 terminal additization.
22 The staff recommends that the implementation
23 dates of diesel fuel standard -- diesel fuel lubricity
24 standard, with the exception of 15 ppm sulfur diesel, be
25 delayed until May 1st, 2005.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
16
1 Staff would like to ask your consideration of the
2 proposed emergency amendments to delay the January 1st,
3 2005, implementation date of the diesel fuel lubricity
4 standard.
5 The staff would be glad to answer any questions
6 now.
7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Thank you,
8 Cherie, for that very complete presentation and
9 explanation of the situation.
10 I don't have any questions. It's very clear.
11 So what I'd like to do now is begin the public
12 testimony portion of this hearing. I'm going to do this
13 in two phases. First we're going to get the witnesses, if
14 any, that are here in Sacramento and wish to testify. And
15 then we will move to find out whether there are persons on
16 the telephone that also wish to provide testimony.
17 So are there witnesses here in Sacramento?
18 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Yes. Just a moment.
19 Okay.
20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Okay. We
21 have two witnesses signed up. The first is Mike Ingham of
22 ChevronTexaco. And Gordon Schremp of the California
23 Energy Commission.
24 Mike, would you please state your name for the
25 record.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
17
1 MR. INGHAM: Good morning. Thank you.
2 My name is Mike Ingham, I work for ChevronTexaco
3 Products Company. And I'm here this morning to speak on
4 behalf of ChevronTexaco.
5 Let me begin by thanking the staff and the Board
6 for recognizing the significant challenge that Chevron
7 faces in gearing up to meet the new diesel lubricity
8 requirement.
9 Up until October we were proceeding on the
10 assumption that we would be able to continue injecting
11 diesel lubricity additive at our two California
12 refineries, as we have done for more than ten years now.
13 The new reality is that we will not be able to
14 continue that practice and will instead have to modify our
15 terminals to enable lubricity additive injection.
16 ChevronTexaco has 11 terminals in California from
17 which we supply diesel fuel. Each of those terminals
18 needs to be fitted with additive injection facilities. We
19 have ordered the necessary equipment and we have begun the
20 engineering and the permitting activities.
21 Under the best of circumstances, we estimate it
22 will require at least the first quarter of 2005 to design,
23 permit, install, and commission lubricity additive
24 injection capability in our terminals.
25 ChevronTexaco strongly supports the proposed 120
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
18
1 day delay in the lubricity requirement implementation
2 date.
3 I'd be happy to answer any questions that you
4 might have.
5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Thank you.
6 I don't have any additional questions.
7 Staff, do you have any questions?
8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Thank you.
9 Mr. Schremp.
10 MR. SCHREMP: Thank you, Mr. Scheible. My name
11 is Gordon Schremp. I'm a Senior Fuel Specialist in the
12 Fuels Office of the California Energy Commission.
13 This morning I am here today to address comments
14 to Mr. Scheible and the other ARB members. My comments
15 represent the findings of the staff of the Fuels Office.
16 And I'll start my comments now, and they'll be brief.
17 I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have
18 following my comments.
19 Staff of the Fuels Office agrees with the
20 findings, conclusions, and the recommendations of the Air
21 Resources Board staff on this matter. We believe a delay
22 is necessary to avoid diesel fuel supply disruptions. So
23 we completely agree with what's been presented here today
24 and the recommendation.
25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Okay. Thank
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
19
1 you, Gordon.
2 Any questions from staff?
3 Okay. Thank you.
4 MR. SCHREMP: Thank you.
5 That completes the witness list here in
6 Sacramento. I guess I'll ask for -- are there any parties
7 on the phone that wish to provide testimony to us?
8 MR. LIVINGSTON: Yes. My name's Tom Livingston
9 from Bosch in Farmington Hills, Michigan. And
10 unfortunately a comment I sent was about one minute late
11 in being received in California. But I'd like to ask that
12 to be admitted to the record please. I sent that to
13 Cherie.
14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I don't
15 believe there's a problem with that, because we -- our
16 comment period goes to noon today, the written comment.
17 MR. LIVINGSTON: Well, thank you.
18 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yeah, I think the
19 issue was the written comments were asked to be received
20 by noon yesterday or at the hearing. So by speaking at
21 this time, they will introduce it at the hearing.
22 MR. LIVINGSTON: I don't have a great deal to
23 comment, only in that we, as a diesel fuel injection
24 manufacturer, are concerned about delaying this back any
25 further. And although some of the points I had asked,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
20
1 obviously you had -- one point was made, your state has
2 been using pipelines to deliver and transport diesel using
3 diesel lubricity additive. And do you have any experience
4 with that? Well, apparently you did have two occasions in
5 the last ten years, from what I hear in the testimony
6 today. And that kind of answers that question.
7 But I guess I wonder how badly -- how much of
8 that's treated and is that a realistic problem that you
9 can expect in the future at the current levels of
10 additization? That was one question.
11 And, secondly, I guess both -- the major point
12 I'd like to make to the people present is -- Cherie is
13 correct. ASTM is now currently adjudicating and going
14 through their process to try and pass their year delay in
15 this.
16 And I guess I would ask that if -- with ASTM's
17 process, if it comes back that the experts in that field
18 judge that it is not with merit to delay it another year,
19 that this Board would then take that into consideration in
20 their own rulemaking process and put quite a bit of
21 credence on that.
22 Now, again, that's not yet decided It won't be
23 decided till December. So that jury is still out. But I
24 think from the point of view of an equipment manufacturer,
25 we certainly would oppose any additional delay in the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
21
1 requirement for the spec. And it sounds to me as if the
2 State of California has decided to delay an enforcement of
3 it as well, if I understood it correctly. And maybe that
4 would be enough for the parties involved who are having
5 real difficulty meeting this to get their processes in
6 place and make it happen.
7 And that's basically all I have to say.
8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Okay. Just
9 to respond a little. Our proposal is to delay the
10 application or our requirement for 120 days, and then it
11 would go into place. We continue to desire to have the
12 lubricity standard apply. But given the situation that
13 the pipeline operator will not accept fuel that has
14 contained greater than historical levels of lubricity
15 additives, we feel the only way we could implement the reg
16 is to provide sufficient time for the necessary equipment
17 to be installed at terminals.
18 And we would have to go see in the future if
19 other actions have some impact and consider that through
20 the normal regulatory process. But we are not considering
21 a delay of a year in the actual application of the
22 lubricity standard.
23 Is that correct, staff?
24 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: That's correct.
25 MR. LIVINGSTON: Okay.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
22
1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Any questions
2 of this witness by staff?
3 Okay. Are there other parties on the phone that
4 would like to testify?
5 Hearing none.
6 I will now move to the next step.
7 We have a number of written comments. And at
8 this time I'd like the staff to identify those so it's
9 clear to all parties what we have received and what we
10 haven't received.
11 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION
12 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Mr. Scheible, we received a letter from
13 an oil refining company. They're supporting the delay for
14 the 120 days. They also provided additional information
15 on why they seeking that.
16 We received the aforementioned comment from Bosch
17 as well.
18 We also received a written comment E-mail from
19 Mike Ingham of ChevronTexaco. And you heard his position
20 earlier.
21 We also received a letter from Western States
22 Petroleum Association also supporting the delay.
23 The Engine Manufactures Association submitted a
24 letter asking that we not do this delay. However, they
25 felt if it is needed, then it should be no more than 120
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
23
1 days.
2 And I think that covers all the written
3 submittals.
4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Thank you,
5 Mr. Simeroth.
6 At this time, I'd like to close the record. And
7 based on the record and the testimony, I will review all
8 of that. And the staff will be making a recommendation to
9 our executive officer on this matter. And we will
10 probably be doing that in the fairly near future since we
11 need to complete the action in time for it to take effect
12 prior to January 1st.
13 Based what I've heard to date, it's fairly likely
14 that the recommendation will be to act as the staff has
15 recommended. We will then submit that to the Office of
16 Administrative Law. And if I understand it correctly,
17 they have a ten-day period of review. And if we gain
18 their approval, it will go into effect after that.
19 I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their
20 time and comments. I'd like to especially thank the
21 staff, who worked hard to pull together this hearing on
22 short notice and on a day when many of us would rather be
23 doing something other than business. But business has to
24 be done first.
25 So thank you very much.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
24
1 And at this time I'll close the hearing, unless
2 counsel advises me I need to comment on something else.
3 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: You could
4 indicate that we're now closing the record.
5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Okay. And as
6 I said, the record is now closed. And only comments
7 received by this time will be considered in the matter.
8 And thank you all.
9 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board
10 meeting adjourned at 9:32 a.m.)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
25
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand
3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered
4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify:
5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the
6 foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was
7 reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified
8 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and
9 thereafter transcribed into typewriting.
10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or
11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any
12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
14 this 29th day of November, 2004.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR
23 Certified Shorthand Reporter
24 License No. 10063
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345